Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- ********0
Can it be that trying to see the other guy's side simply takes too much of our time and energy? Sometimes I suspect that the desire to savage rather than convince an opponent stems from the nagging suspicion that just maybe we are on the wrong side of the logic. I mean, if you are convinced that your position is the correct one, why wouldn't you want to examine it and explain it in a way that might win a convert or two?
- Anarchitect0
you're excellent.
@ copy.pasting William Rapsberry's 'Our Civil Disagreement'.
- ********0
absolutely! ;)
smart man he is
- mrdobolina0
Can anything ever really be "irreducibly complex" or is it just the limited intelligence that humans have at any given time.
- balboa0
My point is let's not get tied up in winning the battle at the sake of the war. Sometimes embracing alternative or INDIRECT approaches is the best way to deal with an opponent that has only one way of engaging.
We don't have to play by the same rules.
Come to think of it, we don't have to play at all.
I'm sure that flagellum is secretly rubbing his little hands (vestigial limbs?) together in glee at having spun 20 or so of you into a huge existential hissy-fit. Stirring it up is the sole point. Raising a ruckus and then squealing with delight that your theory has as much cultural mass as the prevailing one is what it's all about.
As semi-intelligent designers, we should have seen this trick coming from miles away. Hype works through it's sheer persistence, and even we occasionally buy it -- hook, line and sinker.
Misdirection is the strategy. Watch what the other hand is doing.
- ********0
When scientists argue it can get heated, heck, even personal, but ultimately one is proved correct and the other eats crow, and bad feelings are brushed over. No one ever went to war over a theory of gravity or plank's constant.
People have taken lives, alienated people, committed atrocities, lied, gone to war, tortured, manipulated and controlled people all in the name of God for millenia.
I know what side I'm on. I think I have a good idea of where some others on this thread either are or are arguing for without thinking out the complications.
And yes, this thread IS about philosophy, because ID is not science.
I'd rather argue whether Aqua is more blue-green than green-blue.
- balboa0
Don't be ridiculous, EVERYONE agrees that it's blue-green.
;)
- ********0
I thought this thread was about whether or not the Chicken came before the Egg!?!?
drats!!
- flagellum0
Tick, if ID is not science then neither is Archaeology, or any other field where one discriminates between Specified Complexity and random natural mechanisms. It's that simple. Shouting "it's not science!" doesn't change the fact that it is. But if you choose to side with political propagandists instead of openly looking at the facts... have it your way. I've asked you in this thread to tell me exactly how the core tenets of ID are religion and not science and you didn't even touch it. We both know why.
Only part of this thread is about Philosophy. ;)
- Mimio0
No Discipler, it's more like the ID people say "look!, it's science", and the vast majority of the world scientific community saying "no, it's not."
- ********0
ahh here's what I was talking about flagellum/discipler:
The Lewis Overthrust Fiasco
One of the famous examples is the so-called Lewis Overthrust in Glacier Park, Montana. The Lewis Overthrust — a block of rock that is supposed to have been thrust up and out over the shale deposit beneath it — is about 35 miles wide and 6 miles thick. According to uniformitarian evolutionists and their geologists, this massive formation has ridden over the shale deposit below it for a distance of about 40 miles. The problem for evolutionists is very simple. This enormous mass of rock is so-called Pre-Cambrian limestone that according to them, is supposed to be about 500,000,000 years older than the rock on which it rests, which is a very thin layer of so-called Cretaceous shale. In an effort to avoid the obvious negating of their arbitrary dating theories, they have come up with this idea. But anyone with dull normal intelligence and no education at all could stand and look at this phenomena and see the utter ridiculousness of it. How could eight hundred thousand billion tons of rock slide over a thin layer of soft shale for great distances without entirely obliterating the shale layer?
----
I can't explain this one.
- Anarchitect0
hopefully
ID will not become
american as
american pie.
- flagellum0
Whatever helps you, mimio. ;) You're starting to sound like a broken record.
And the vast majority of the scientific community said the same about the Big Bang theory when it first came out. (repeating myself yet again).
Science has had more than one revolution in the past. The scientific establishment doesn't like these new punk rockers with their new ideas. However, the new idea takes root. You can't argue with the science.
- flagellum0
woa that's crazy, jazx.
- Mimio0
No, it's the "prayer in school" people with a new tactic/topic. We've been dragging then into the future kicking and screaming for decades.
- Mimio0
The big bang theory wasn't that divisive, what a gross and disingenuous mischaracterization by you discipler.(again)
- flagellum0
riiiiiiight... and again, what am I to tell my agnostic and muslim ID friends?
Keep up the propaganda, mimio. You work for the ACLU?
- mrdobolina0
Science has had more than one revolution in the past. The scientific establishment doesn't like these new punk rockers with their new ideas. However, the new idea takes root. You can't argue with the science.
flagellum
(Jan 6 06, 12:24)Punk Rockers... hahahahahahahaa
- ********0
flagellum, then again, that's considered a relative dating method, however, that's a massive inconsistency.
here's another you might like:
The Swiss Matterhorn And Mythen Peak Problems
In other cases, evolutionists have the massive Swiss Matterhorn being moved upward and sideways for more than forty miles, in order to explain why it is out of place in the geological time column. But that is only a small thing when compared to the Mythen Peak of the Alps, which has a number of strata which are all out of order. Eocene is on the bottom, then Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous. This is a contradiction of the geological time column’s fanciful dating of these rock formations. In order to try to work their way out of this embarrassing denial of their schemes, historic geologists have arbitrarily moved this mountain, in tact, thousands of miles from Africa into Switzerland!
----
also inexplicable by my limited geologic knowledge
- flagellum0
Certainly it was, mimio. A scientific community which had embraced the notion of an eternal universe for so long was being told that it had a sudden beginning. The theistic implications were painfully clear. And those who formulated the theory suffered.